If that stalactite falls from the roof of a cave and smashes into the ground, breaking into many pieces, even though all the same “parts” that formed the stalactite are still present, they will not immediately reform to make the stalactite.

This is a straw man my argument is that dead organisms have all the necessary components required for life in tact for a certain period after death before tissue breakdown kicks in. Humans for example have the necessary components for life and more than that these components are arranged in the right positions, otherwise resuscitations wouldn't be possible. The fact that organisms can die despite having all the requirements for life is clear proof that having parts and having them in the right places is not all that's required.

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the landObsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vainTwo thousand years of misery, of torture in my nameHypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the lawMy name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

You are still confusing yourself by talking about "parts" being present at the start of abiogenesis and also when a body has just died.

As I have already explained, the "parts" that would have been present at the start of abiogenesis are completely different to the "parts" that make up a living or recently deceased body.

Completely different.

The "parts" that would have been present for the process of abiogenesis to begin would have been chemical elements or compounds that began a process of reactions. They would not have in any way resembled the "parts" of a living or deceased body.

And the process of abiogenesis the led to the very first simple self-replicating lifeforms would have been totally different to the processes that keep a fully-formed body alive and that can sometimes resuscitate a body.

So, we are talking about:

- COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KINDS OF "PARTS"

and

- COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROCESSES ACTING ON THOSE DIFFERENT "PARTS".

There is no connection between your difficulty in understanding the reason for death, and your difficulty in understanding the process of abiogenesis. They are completely different things.

As I have already explained, the "parts" that would have been present at the start of abiogenesis are completely different to the "parts" that make up a living or recently deceased body.

They were still parts.

The "parts" that would have been present for the process of abiogenesis to begin would have been chemical elements or compounds that began a process of reactions. They would not have in any way resembled the "parts" of a living or deceased body.

Are you suggesting that these chemical reactions characterized the earliest life form or are you suggesting that they preceeded the earliest life form? If the former biologically a bisque of chemicals undergoing a series of reactions does not qualify as life, you need to display some characteristics of living things in order to be said to be alive, I take it for granted that you know what these characteristics are. So the first living organism was beyond the stage of being just chemical reactions as you're suggesting but possessed parts as simple as they might have been so as to perform at least some of the things that the living things today perform. If the latter then these chemical reactions were only responsible for making the parts necessary for life but then like I showed having parts isn't all that needed.

This is a straw man my argument is that dead organisms have all the necessary components required for life in tact for a certain period after death before tissue breakdown kicks in. Humans for example have the necessary components for life and more than that these components are arranged in the right positions, otherwise resuscitations wouldn't be possible.

I asked earlier, but you seem to have moved on to other things: Why is resuscitation even required? If the physical body has all the right parts in all the right places for it to be alive...why does someone need to come along and rearrange the parts, add more energy, supply new chemicals etc before it will come back to life?

Uhm yeah.... That's the same as saying you can create a plane engine with bike parts. "But, they're still parts !"

I hunt for the truth

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the landObsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vainTwo thousand years of misery, of torture in my nameHypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the lawMy name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

But it IS puerile junk! The driver is utterly irrelevant to the analogy/argument...I’ll return to that shortly.

In the meantime I will object and say that a driver is necessary, a car with all the necessary parts doesn't automatically have speed it needs to move first, and until then it's but a "speedless" collection of parts.

But I have only brought up the above to show you that your assertion isn't even correct. However, on a more fundamental basis, your assertion about a driver is utterly irrelevant to the issue - which is that correct organisation of matter will cause an emergent property

Again your wrong as I show above.

You can put a driver in a pile of oil, metal lumps, petrol and rubber/plastic, and no matter how much that driver tries he can't make that heap of matter move and have 'speed' - the emergent property cannot exist until the structure is in it's required form.

Your misrepresentation of my argument is so clear. I'm not arguing against the fact that all the parts necessary for life need to be in place for life to be, my argument is although these parts are necessary for life they are not single-handedly responsible for life, they make up but one piece of the jigsaw puzzle.

You remind me of an 8 year old boy who once said to me that modern man is not a 'meat-eater' because we (as in the majority of us) don't go out and chase and club animals to death prior to eating them (he'd seen a film on the assumed habits of our early ancestors). Amused, I asked him why we modern people don't count as meat-eating animals anymore and he said "Because we have butchers to cut up our meat now".Do you see the irrelevance?

No your analogy makes no sense to me I don't even think it ties to what we are discussing.

And that is exactly what you have done with this insistence of a driver.

Nonsense you're just trying to duck the need for a driver, but a car does need a driver to start it up and get it on the road before speed appears and to assume that a motionless car has speed is rubbish, it sure does have the potential to have speed but that potential won't be realized until the car is driven.

I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping handMy image is of agony, my servants rape the landObsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vainTwo thousand years of misery, of torture in my nameHypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the lawMy name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

MoneraMonera was a biological kingdom of the five-kingdom system of biological classification. It comprised most organisms with a prokaryotic cell organization. For this reason the kingdom was sometimes called Prokaryota or Prokaryotae. Prior to its creation these were treated as two separate divisions of plants: the Schizomycetes (bacteria) were considered fungi, and the Cyanophyta were considered blue-green algae. The latter are now considered a group of bacteria, typically called the cyanobacteria and are now known not to be closely related to plants, fungi, or animals.

Monera is becoming archaeic, Bacteria are now recognized as a Domain with 2 other domains, Archaea & Eukaryota making up all living things.Ref: The ancestors tail, Richard Dawkins pg 556.

Edited by bluescat48, : missing "/"

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

No its not necessary for the analogy, an analogy is not an exact representation of reality. Whether the car has a driver, the tires have air, or if the road is icy, it does not detract from the point he (or she) is trying to make. Emergent properties are the point, the analogy is an attempt for you to perhaps understand, but instead you show a misunderstanding of what an analogy is meant to do. Would you care to take a look at the point instead of whether the road in the analogy is gravel or pavement?

they are not single-handedly responsible for life, they make up but one piece of the jigsaw puzzle.

and yet when people have responded to you that the parts necessary are not in place you are unable to show otherwise. Decay starts immediately upon death. Your claim that 'parts' are still intact is incorrect, the heart/brain/etc may be intact but decay has set in on the cellular level and you have not shown otherwise. You cannot show otherwise because its an established and well known fact.

You said "the only way for parts to fade from a corpse is through decay and like the Wikipedia article said decay can take a few days even years" But you somehow continue to miss the point that it can take days or even years for decay to finish the job, the process of decay begins immediately upon death.

It also a well known fact that cold temperatures can extend the time in which a person can be brought back from death. Everyone but you says that this is because decay does not set in as quickly. You however are pressed to explain why warm temperatures make souls leave bodies faster than cold temperatures. So will you now amuse me with some explanation that makes your model of cold souls make sense?

Nonsense you're just trying to duck the need for a driver

Are you trying to duck the definition of 'analogy'?

No your analogy makes no sense to me I don't even think it ties to what we are discussing.

This newest analogy is showing how you are completely missing the point of the previous analogy and instead showing a misunderstanding of the point of an analogy. Since you are a part of the discussion it is quite on target for the analogy to point out a flaw in your method of debate. The point is to show that you just don't get it, and you don't.